Using the Delphi and Snow Card Techniques to Build Consensus Among Diverse Community and Academic Stakeholders

Abstract

BACKGROUND The New York University- New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYU-HHC) Clinical and Translational Science Institute (CTSI) used a community-based participatory research (CBPR) and consensus-building approach among its community advisory board (CAB) and steering committee (SC) members to formulate research priorities to foster shared research collaborations. METHODS The Delphi technique is a methodology used to generate consensus from diverse perspectives and organizational agendas through a multi-method, iterative approach to collecting data. A series of on-line surveys was conducted with CAB members to identify health and research priorities from the community perspective. Subsequently, CAB and SC members were brought together and the snow card approach was utilized to narrow to two priority areas for shared research collaborations. RESULTS Cardiovascular disease (CVD)/obesity and mental health were identified as health disparity areas for shared research collaborations within a social determinants framework. In response, two workgroups were formed with leadership provided by three co-chairs representing the three constituents of the NYU-HHC CTSI: NYU faculty, HHC providers, and community leaders CONCLUSIONS The Delphi approach fostered ownership and engagement with community partners because it was an iterative process that required stakeholders’ input into decision making. The snow card technique allowed for organizing of a large number of discrete ideas. Results have helped to inform the overall CTSI research agenda by defining action steps, and setting an organizing framework to tackle two health disparity areas. The process helped ensure that NYUHHC CTSI research and community engagement strategies are congruent with community priorities

Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature

“…Articles in which several different data collection activities were identified to engage patients were reviewed, such as through surveys and key informant interviews [ 44 – 51 ], focus groups [ 13 , 14 , 52 – 66 ], and patient panels [ 67 ]. While data collection activities differed, a common approach across Tier 2 included a two-step process.…”

“…Most often, success was not reliant on clear evaluation metrics but on the authors’ reviews of the process [ 56 ] or on opinions formed in reaching objectives that were not explicitly stated a priori [ 14 , 56 ]. For example, Rideout et al [ 52 ] identified that engaging patients at the macro level provided ample opportunity for shared research collaboration related to CVD and mental health. Working groups were formed with leadership provided by co-chairs: one from specific content areas and one from the public/community leaders.…”

Development and evaluation of a community-engaged research training program: Building capacity of Marshallese stakeholders and academic researchers to conduct health research

“…However, conducting CBPR requires building the capacity of both community stakeholders and academic researchers (Crosby et al 2013;Goytia et al 2013;Kwon et al 2012). Though several CBPR engagement and training models have been published (Allen et al 2013;Baquet et al 2013;Cole et al 2013;Crosby et al 2013;Goytia et al 2013;Healey, Reed & Huber 2013;Martin del Campo et al 2013;Rideout et al 2013;Smith, Kaufman & Dearlove 2013;Young-Lorion et al 2013), few have focused on work with Pacific Islander communities (DiStefano et al 2013;Kaholokula et al 2014;Kwan et al 2012Kwan et al , 2014Palmer 2014).…”

Quality Metrics in Neonatal and Pediatric Critical Care Transport

“…The Delphi technique has been a popular method for developing indicators reflecting patient and general practitioner perspectives of chronic illness, performance indicators for emergency medicine, and indicators for cardiovascular disease (6,8,(16)(17)(18)(19). Delphi methodology succeeds in converging agreement, not in ensuring the validity of the results.…”